Comments

‘Fluster & Ramsdork’?! God, Rog, you are a gift to our side of the argument!

On the basis of your performance above I’m afrad that I can only conclude that you are a fanatic. Fanatics are scary, yes, but not very interesting.

By all means, carry on acting the extremist ratbag, as it could hardly be better timed for our purposes, for the reasons I’ve even helpfully outlined for you above.

(You know, I’m actually giving you some sound tactical advice here – ever won a political campaign, Rog? I have. Several, in fact – but if, as I suspect, you are, indeed, a fanatic, you simply won’t be able to take it. More fool you.)

The Wiggles on the GISPII ice cores are at a frequency of around 60+/-15 years. Cyclic climatic variations have been identified in instrumental and proxy records at around ~80years (Gleissberg), ~180 years, 206 years (de Vries), ~970 years, 2240 years (Halstatt) to name a few. I know you warmies are in denial of these cycles, but in the real world outside the carbon catastophe knitting circle, everyone else knows they exist. And in order for them to have existed prior to the increase in co2, there must be cumulative effects of natural variation. Therefore the Sun being more active than the long term average for ~70 years from 1930-2003 must have made a significant contribution to the rise in temperature over the C20th.

That’s one of the many reasons why so few people take any notice of your failed co2 driven climate hypothesis any more. However, the political show rolls on, because as Canada’s ex environment minister Christine Stewart said:

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”

I’m all for justice and equality, but trying to bring about radical political change on the back of a phony theory is an enterprise doomed to failure. Give it up.

As I said, “When in Rome…” Anyway, I’m not the one making propaganda snuff movies of brainwashed teachers murdering their students who dare to question the extremist dogma you and your friends promote.

>Cyclic climatic variations have been identified in instrumental and proxy records at around ~80years (Gleissberg), ~180 years, 206 years (de Vries), ~970 years, 2240 years (Halstatt) to name a few. I know you warmies are in denial of these cycles, but in the real world outside the carbon catastophe knitting circle, everyone else knows they exist.

396: Do you ever read the papers you quote? If you did read them are you capable of understanding the words in them or do you just look at pictures?
In scenario C the CO2 growth rate is blah blah.
The deniers are nothing but “fake skeptics”

I was referring to scenario ‘B’ you arrogant badmouthing alarmist piece of crap.

“In scarynario ‘B’ the growth of the annual increment of co2 is reduced from 1.5%yr today to 1%yr in 1990, 0.5% in 2000 and 0% in 2010″

404:”I wonder how stupid one must be to miss the red button. Tell us, chek.”

I fear you are wasting your time PentaxZ. Alarmist buffoons such as ‘Chek’ don’t Chek their facts before making total tw@ts of themselves in public. Then they make up stories to try to backpedal out of their mis-statements without admitting they are wrong. It’s symptomatic of the general warmist mentality; keep bolting ad hoc unsupported false reasoning on to prop up the creaking edifice of their failed theory.

Travesty Trenberth tells us the missing heat has started hiding in the deep ocean since the near surface atmosphere all but stopped warming a decade ago. No explanation of how this can be when the rate of sea level rise has slowed to almost nothing above the centennial rate and gone negative over the last few years though. Still, alarmist tosspots like ‘Chek’ avert their brains from such illogicalities, just like they do from the big red murder button in the snuff movie their propagandists made.

While you’re here, Rog, can you please do something useful identify a credible source for that quote – which occurs in several different variations, according to the political requirement of the blogger, I suspect – but apparently only in looking-glass-world. All references I can find certainly circle straight back to looking-glass-world

â¢ Context: Terence Concoran writing an editorial in the December 26th 1998 edition of the Canadian Financial Post attributed similar comments to Christine Stewart the former Canadian Minister of the Environment. Stewart had been speaking with members of staff at the Calgary Herald on December 14th 1998 and Corcoran subsequently wrote an article about the discussions.

During the discussion the former Minister at one point said âI am very worried about global warming,â. Later in the interview, although we have no idea what the context was, she stated âNo matter if the science is all phony there are collateral environmental benefits.â And in a third part of the interview when discussing climate change she is quoted as saying â[Climate change provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.

>Rog, I know I’m wasting my time. But it’s a bit fun to watch the foilhats squiggle like worms on a hook when they are presented facts on which they can’t respond

A bit rich coming from someone who has refused multiple times to engage in a debate with me, and who agreed to back down if his six copied-and-pasted questions from an extremist right-wing fringe blog where answered (which they were) before calling me a volley of uninspired names after you were unable to answer the rebuttal.

Tallbloke,

>I was referring to scenario ‘B’ you arrogant badmouthing alarmist piece of crap.

414: PentaxZ: “There are so few alarmistic blogs left these days where you can get so much laughs as the pseudoscientific Deltoid.

The numbers are dwindling I agree. Realclimate doesn’t even get its viewing figures graphed by Alexa anymore unless you stretch the time frame. Tim Lambert hasn’t written more than 4 articles in 5 months here.

SKS keeps putting up more fallacy fodder, but then that site has a paid propagandist behind it.

420:Michael, I mistook you for someone who could debate reasonably. If I’d realised you were a pedant, I’d have put tilde symbols in front of all the numbers instead of half of them. Now you have reduced the conversation to this sort of childishness, I’ll leave you with it.

*There are so few alarmistic blogs left these days where you can get so much laughs as the pseudoscientific Deltoid*

*The numbers are dwindling I agree*

I have been reading this to-and froing with bigmouth-no substance RTB and a few morons like PentaxZ, Brent etc. and frankly its pathetic.

So RTB, when can we expect to see your stunning science written up into a major scientific journal? The numbers of denial papers in the peer-reviewed literature is not increasing; hell, it’s still close to a big fat zippo. Instead, your brand of stupid, myopic science is that carried out by non-scientific simpletons like yourself, Watts, McIntyre and Mountford on blogs. That’s it. Most scientists – you know what they are RTB? – (hint: the people working in universities and research institutes and who actually, lo and behold, do research!)- wouldn’t touch your brand of ignorance with a ten foot long barge pole. That’s why you denialti are an incestuous lot: you venture into each other’s blogs and slap each other on the back and tell each other how great you all are and how great your brand of anti-science is. But when push comes to shove your bilge rarely gets published – and when it does it ends up in E & E or in LaRouche’s rag.

Its amazing what big mouths the denilati have on blogs but when it comes down to the nitty gritty you D-K acolytes shun the major conferences (Heartland not included) where climate scientists assemble and discuss these issues.I have asked the other world expert-with no publications Jonarse to submit his Earth-shattering rebuttal of Hansen to a major journal and, like you, he backs down every time with the disclaimer that he doesn’t need to write up a rebtuall because real scientists know he’s right! You lot are a sordid bunch who try desperately to camouflage your right wing political agendas in scientific clothing. It doesn’t wash, RTB: your agendas stink so badly that they can’t help but be smelled by most reading them. So cut the crap and admit that you hate climate science (science in general) and abuse it to promote political and economic agendas. At least then you’d be being honest.

Oh dear Tallcrank really seems to be getting quite flustered, up at the crack of dawn UK time to get banging away on that keyboard.

Firstly Rog, a ‘snuff movie’ is generally accepted to involve real death occurring on film for entertainment, as opposed to pretend deaths usually depicted for dramatic narrative purposes. Real death didn’t happen in the 10/10 film, nor in the Python’s Peckinpah spoof ‘Salad Days’ which were respectively, a promo film and an entertainment aimed at adults who can differentiate between fantasy and reality, so neither can be termed ‘snuff films’. I accept that may be a fine line too far for some cranks.

Secondly as a search shows, the only people still interested in the 10/10 film are denier sites, hugging it to their bosoms as a virtual icon of martyrdom. But rest easy in your beds as deniers are really much too stupid to be worth crossing the moral line of murder for. The arguments of deniers are so weak all the slaughter occurs in the intellectual realm.

Thirdly, have I misremembered a short film last seen 18 months ago? It’s entirely possible. Was there more than one edit released? That’s possible too, but as it was withdrawn in response to a wave of ersatz puritanical bleating by the victim-bully contingent, who cares? (Apart of course from you Rog and your fellow cranks who cling to it as a displacement equivalent for actual, reel-life thuggery).

Fourthly, and more importantly do I think it had any connection with reality and real-life threats? Of course not. That’s the territory of loons and cranks, which is your home ground.

The thing is Rog, there are serious scientists who disagree with the consensus: Lindzen and Pielke Snr for example. But they wouldn’t touch your cranky notions with a bargepole. There are also harmless cranks like Corbyn whose record is only slightly worse than chance.

But you tallcrank were a central player in CRU leak 2 redux.
Now as things went, nobody gave a flying one about that – all the meat that could be lied about and misrepresented had already been done in CRU 1 – but you were ready, willing and able to resurrect the whole meaningless circus again, without even the wit to evaluate and recognise there was nothing there in Part 2. And that’s why you’re ignorant denier trash. IMHO, of course

Alright, Rog, I’ll put it to you straight out: would you accept that yet another pet quote that you all ping back and forward to each other so often you’ve come to believe it as gospel is likely to be, at best, just another piece of decontextualised selective quotation?

(It’s all a bit like all your favourite phrases from the CRU hack, isn’t it? Which was a long time ago, and- do please site down before you read what I’m about to say- Duffer, GooSeWuh, KarenTPMcThingy, Pentax, you too- I’m afraid it’s not coming back. There there; chin up, people! I know you all tried to revive it and everything, but so many media people got burned the first time they’re just not listening anymore, are they?)

And, even if it were true; who is Christine Stewart anyway? I never heard of her until, um, today. Who are 10/10, for that matter? Do they run Jim Hansen, NASA and the National Academies of Science as agents, of vice-versa? What an extraordinarily paranoiac individual you’d have to be to credit any of this nonsense.

Heartland, on the other hand, is not obscure, it is central. Heartland is the organizer of your major ‘Skeptic’ (*cough*) gabfest. Heartland chose to run these billboards as a frickin’ centrepiece for this very same conference. Heartland is a channeler of funds to many of your most beloved people and projects, Precious.

In other words: Heartland is you, Sunshine!

And let’s see what the reports say Heartland’s billboards have managed to achieve (ask the LA Times!) thus far, shall we?;

That’s on top of AT&T and GM a couple of months back after the Gleick papers release furor (and, yes, we know about the Strategy doc.)

(They also managed to alienate the environmental organizations they were working with -I kid you not, folks!- along with the insurance companies listed above in getting developers out of low-lying, high-inundation-risk areas. That pleasantly surprising project may yet simply shift outside the organization.)

Withdrawals from the conference:

Laframboise –

Suddenly, we were all publicly linked to an organization that thinks itâs OK to equate people concerned about climate change with psychopaths.

Now, Ms. Raspberry, with her ‘interesting’ theories about the IPCC that so excite people who’ve never bothered to read-up on how it all works, was to be a star of the show, just like the billboards. Read all about it if you don’t believe me. (Oh, but you do believe me!)

McKitrick –

You cannot simultaneously say that you want to promote a debate while equating the other side to terrorists and mass murderers.

Oh, yeah, even Sensenbrenner threatened to withdraw. And Microsoft issued a formal statement denouncing both HI’s stance on climate and the billboards.

And could you please name a more comprehensive own-goal, if you’re aware of one? You know, with similar, identifiable outcomes in the real world, not the endless reams of imagined outcomes confabulated in the overwrought hothouse of online Denial. Denunciation by Watts or the Conservapedia doesn’t count, I’m afraid…

*As you should know, in the case of the climate science, the debate and the truth about it has moved from the peer reviewed literature to the blogosphere. And that for a good reason*

Yes, the good reason is that the cranks and nutjobs and right wingnuts for the most part don’t do science. They do, on the other hand, promote political agendas, and the internet is a great place for that. This is why flat Earth theories, alchemy and the like are still taken seriously by some clowns on the internet. Moreover, since it isn’t peer-reviewed, and since any Tom, Dick or Harry can profess to be a world class expert in any field even if their qualifications are in cleaning public lavatories (with a hat’s off to Monty Python for that), then the internet has become a great source of profound stupidity. The climate change deniers have cornered that market. You are a member of a special club, PentaxZ. One that is scientifically and morally bankrupt but who don’t give a damn.

So let’s get to the heart of the matter PentaxZ.

And let’s clear all of the rhetoric out of the way and get to the truth:

You are a raving lunatic who has about as much understanding of science as a soil-dwelling bacteria. And on the contrary, I give the bacteria more common sense.

Hardly. Deltoid is one of the blogs that actually connects to the scientific world and process although perhaps not quite as directly as say, Real Climate for example, which maintains a community of world-class scientists.

That you are totally unable to distinguish it from your preferred crank’s and quack’s sites actually says more about you and your collective need to regularly declare your periodic victories, based solely on your vaporous imaginings, chronic insecurities, slanders and wishful thinking. But never, ever any substance.

Wow @ 429;
“One continuous whine from deniers is “So what temperature SHOULD the earth be at?!?!?”.
Yet their continued “it’s just a natural cycle” INSISTS that there is a “natural temperature” that the earth system just deviates from side to side on”

This is indeed, the unifying theory of Denialism.

This view is stuck 100 years or more in the past, when it was believed there was a ‘natural order’ that was beyond man’s influence. It’s a semi-religious theme coming from the idea of a creator who made everything as it should be.

This is the intellectual underpinnings of Roy Spencers ‘Iris’ – it was his attempt to explicate a mechanism for the unchanging natural order as set by the creator.

(And wait – it’s a decade ago now? Not since 2000? Not since 1998? Not “this century”? Not “the last 15 years”? So hard to keep up when you keep shifting that window round like that. Its almost like, if you left it in one place long enough, people might be able to see through it.)

> It’s a semi-religious theme coming from the idea of a creator who made everything as it should be.

However, the point I had only recently connected was that they whine about how “alarmists” have it wrong because there’s no “right” temperature for the earth, yet here they are pretending there is an INHERENTLY right temperature of the earth.

I’d already made the religious connection (for the irreligious, they merely prate Randian mythology that insists that if rich people want to do it, it MUST be right, it can be no other way).

It was so lovely to have RTB turn up here and demonstrate the astounding depths of his igknowledge and illogic combined with the self-assured certainty with which he proclaims it – and the complete lack of awareness of the effect on his putative credibility.

You natural variation deniers make me laugh. There is plenty of empirical evidence for these cycles, writ large in paleo records, on the shores of northern Canada and Siberia, in seabed ice-rafted moraine deposits, in speleothems worldwide. There are literally hundreds of peer reviewed papers documenting them. yet you carbon dioxide asphyxiated wankers can’t see further than back 50 years to the start of the Mauna Loa series. And you think we’re the ones ignorant of climate science. Heh. Clueless tossers.

Anyway, back to the fun:
……..
If youâre licensed for huntinâ down âroos
Beware the bold benders of truths
Theyâll say youâre a sniper
And then get all âhyperâ
To make sure their lies heard on the news

We don’t think it RTB. We know it. You have the gall to insinuate that you are some kind of ‘expert’ when you’ve never published a bloody paper in your miserable life. Big talk, little man.

What makes you look even more ridiculous than you already are is that 20+ years ago your lot were calling AGW a ‘doomsday myth'; it wasn’t happening. Then, as more data came in, and the myth suddenly became reality, it was then either (1) due to natural forcing (i.e. solar) or (2) fell within the range of natural variation. Essentially you deniers shift the goalposts as it suits your political narrative.

What an ugly bunch of science-abusers you are. Why you wade in here with your profound ignorance is anyone’s guess.

“as more data came in, and the [doomsday] myth suddenly became reality…”

lol. Junk_Science_Jeff steps into the fray.

“it was then either (1) due to natural forcing (i.e. solar) or (2) fell within the range of natural variation.”

Well Jeff, as the paleo reconstructions show, nature has been capable of causing big and sudden swings in temperature over large sections of the plaanet since… forever. I doubt nature suddenly lost this capability when man set fire to coal.

Now I’ve no idea what planet you, Jeff, are personally in orbit around. Those like me, who are highly sceptical of the (now many times falsified) co2 CAGW chicken-little junk science you peddle, are grounded in the reality of looking at empirical data regarding Earth. Rather than getting all hyper over utterly inadequate and incomplete computer generated doomsday scarynarios.

Since the negative phase of natural variation has nixed the alleged co2 caused warming for a decade or so,

Are you saying that we should prepare for a large increase in temperature once the ‘negative phase of natural variation’ (whatever that is) passes? This seems to be at variance with your general opinion.

When I see people claiming to detect lengthy cycles, I wonder how robust their statistics are. I’ve seen too many examples of people making, say, 100 comparisons then discussing at length the 5 that were ‘significant’ at 5% and suspect something similar is going on.

“Are you saying that we should prepare for a large increase in temperature once the ‘negative phase of natural variation’ (whatever that is) passes? This seems to be at variance with your general opinion.”

Richard, I think we’re in for several cooler decades, followed by a brief warming around 2045-2065, and then generally downhill again after that. If you’re interested in why my research leads me to that conclusion, visit my website. Trying to discuss it here will only set off the howler monkeys and baboons.

“The only thing you’re lacking Tallquack is a coherent theory tying all those hundreds/thousands/millions of your ‘cycles’ together to match observations.”

Well no-Chek, my global energy model replicates 150 years of temperature evolution better than co2 driven climate models and does it without ad hoc-key stickery joggery pokery involving extra aerosols on demand as required to save the model.

It’s also gives approximate future temperature evolution directly calculated from the underlying equations. It doesn’t predict ENSO events but correctly captures the underlying multidecadal trends due to the domination of La Nina and El Nino over the relevant time periods.

2) Many people are as lucky as RTB to be located near a major university where they can easily attend seminars, talk to researchers, etc. Presumably RTB can mention some names of researchers there that know him.

3) Even better, maybe he could give a seminar on his work, with plenty of time for questions by experts, ideally video’d and made available, as the EPA did with this talk of N. Scafetta, which may be quite relevant. (Just flip through slides, which include mention of Rhodes Fairbridge.)

It is plausible that SEE might not want to sponsor RTB to speak, but it might be a valuable educational experience, as blogs and in-person experiences can be … different.

John, You have hit the crux of the matter on the proverbial head. Climate change deniers are like schoolyard bullies – they huff and puff and pound their chests, but when push comes to shove they like to hide on their weblogs. RTB does not hesitate to attack James Hansen and other climate scientists, but if were asked to debate them face to face, he’d chicken out in a second. Not that I think busy scientists should waste their time debating primary school beginners like RTB, but its these beginners who try and give the impression that they are world class experts whilst having no pedigree in the field. John gave you a good challenge RTB: sign up for an international scientific conference on AGW and invite Jonas N along and you both can get up there and make complete idiots of yourselves. Or maybe not.

Besides, RTB: you wouldn’t know junk science from the real thing if it hit you in the face. How many international conferences on climate have you attended? Or workshops? How many publications do you have in any peer-reviewed journal? Heck, as John said you’ve got researchers all around you. How many of them do you speak to? How many actually agree with you on the slim chance that they do? When you’ve actually gotten off your butt and done some science, other than the blog variety, you can criticize me…

PentaxZ: Yes, you nitwit. Many of the deniers are admitting it is warming, but claim its ‘natural’ or within the normal range of variance. Which is utterly ridiculous, given the spatial scales involved. Large scale systems are highly deterministic Back in the early 90s the deniers said it wasn’t warming at all. Another one of their canards is that it hasn’t warmed in 10 years – or is it 13 – or 15? Take your pick. Anything to deny, deny, deny.

*Richard, I think we’re in for several cooler decades, followed by a brief warming around 2045-2065, and then generally downhill again after that. If you’re interested in why my research leads me to that conclusion, visit my website*

What a hoot! MY Research! MY! What research is that? On a blog for heaven’s sake? Where are the papers? The conference invites? The beef? Dunning-Kruger would have a field day with you, RTB.

This is *one of* the several approaches to attempting to get a handle on solar variability we have developed. They are all giving similar predictions of an imminent steep drop in solar activity levels. All the studies in mainstream climate science say the effect of solar variability on climatic variation is small. This is because they consider TSI variability in terms of W/m^2 only, and take no account of large variability within the emitted spectrum.

There is increasing evidence in the literature of large amplifying effects due to UV variation affecting upper atmosphere chemistry which in turn affects the disposition of the jet streams around the polar vortices. Our climate scientists and our spurious leaders ignore this stuff at our peril.

The ocean heat content built up by 75 years of above average solar activity levels has been buffering the surface temp against the drop in solar activity since 2003. The current low cycle 24 is using up the reserves fast. It is likely to get a lot colder from late 2013. Farmers take note.

Brenty blathered: “How many trees did mighty Mann have data from for his hockey stick reconstruction?” Anticipated Jeff Harvey answer: “Why must you denialists be so obsessed with quantifying things? Can’t you feel that Gaia is angry?”

Or more likely, how many deniers have successfully refuted Mann?

Despite the impressions you may have been drip-fed, that would be a big fat zero, wouldn’t it, Brenda?

“How, pray tell, do the oceans keep expanding while their heat content decreases?”

First you need to work out the relative contributions of steric changes and runoff vs evaporation. Then you need to know a bit more about how the satellite altimetry is calibrated. Thirdly it is adviseable to compare several datasets, including Envisat, Topex and Jason. Finally consideration should be given to varying interpretations of the ARGO data, and the dodgy splice to the XBT data.http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/working-out-where-the-energy-goes-part-2-peter-berenyi/

Because you don’t. If you did, you’d publish the odd paper in a good scientific journal. As it is, the denial literature is as thin as the creation ‘science’ literature.

I see Jonas is making an idiot of himself agin in his asylum. Tell you what RTB: why don’t you and he write a paper together and submit it to Science or Nature? Since you both are self-professed geniuses, I am sure it would be a breeze to get it it.

As for RTB writing this: *Richard, I think we’re in for several cooler decades, followed by a brief warming around 2045-2065, and then generally downhill again after that*…

it sounds suspiciously like Lomborg when he estimated extinction rate to be .075% of biodiversity over the next 50 years in his appalling book (TSE). The media love ‘handles’, even if they are patently absurd, like Lomborg’s (and RTBs) estimates. I could dissect the myriad flaws in Lomborg’s calculations here but I won’t. I have better things to do. But since population ecology is my field of research (and not Lomborg’s), I can see why laypeople would be taken in by his estimates. Just as they might be by RTBs. Until he submits it to a scientific journal, its worthless. He may call it ‘research’, but it means diddly squat until it is reviewed critically by experts in the field. Science by blog ain’t science if its not thrown to the wolves. This is where the deniers are rank cowards. Big talk but little substance when challenged to put their ideas to the real test.

75000 people view my site every month Jeff. Why would I want to pay a journal to hide my work behind a paywall?

“patently absurd, like Lomborg’s (and RTBs) estimates”

That estimate stems from an R2 value of 0.99 in reproducing Leans TSI reconstruction from climate cyclic periodicities. I’m sure you’re a great population ecologist Jeff. I think you understand jack all about solar system dynamics though. Unfortunately, the mainstream journals reviewers don’t either, so we’ll continue innovating in the open where peer review and co-operative development from intelligent laymen is continuous and ongoing.

The proof of the pudding will be in the accuracy of the predictions, not the approval of groupthinking consensoids. Looking good so far.

Lots of the trolls that infest threads here are objectionable, stupid, pointless and tedious, but it is a while since I’ve encountered someone that is actually fractally wrong. It really is astonishing to behold.

Why wait? There’s apparently at least 2240 years of data to hindcast against. Your model doesn’t know whether it’s predicting the next 10-15 year period or a 10-15 year period that occurred 800 years ago. It should do equally well with either.

I think you understand jack all about solar system dynamics though. Unfortunately, the mainstream journals reviewers don’t either,

Yes Rog, it’s those experts in solar system dynamics (you know, the peers who conduct the journal reviews) who know nothing about solar system dynamics- not you. The old expression “If everyone around you seems crazy, maybe it’s you” certainly comes to mind.

As I asked above, Rog, could you please point out a bigger own-goal than this one? Hint: saying ‘Gleick ‘ will only be hilarious…

And then explain to us why you think more ratbaggery – e.g. casting scorn on scientists’ reactions to alleged threats, an unsurprising consequence of the hysterical and toxic atmosphere you have all created – is the ideal strategy for your side to pursue at this point?

Rog smallmind really doesn’t have a clue or he is being deliberately ignorant.

He mutters:

I was referring to scenario ‘B’ you arrogant badmouthing alarmist piece of crap.

Now, apart from the childish obscenities emanating from his foul mouth (what is the betting he has halitosis) he shows his lack of scientific acumen by not telling us either which paper he was referring us to, or which of the three scenarios he chose for his mistaken analysis.

Rog smallmind, that is not how real scientists discuss science. You may act like that on your silly blog or on other even sillier blogs such as climatefraudit, wattsuphisbutt or Bishop Shill but not on real science blogs (you did see that his blog is referred to as a Science Blog, didn’t you) that means when responding it behooves you to act like a scientist and be accurate with your discussion and provide valid cites and links so we can actually see what you are referring to. It makes it a lot easier that way for us to find all your errors and misinterpretations. Oooh wait a minute, that is your MO, you don’t want us to check up on your references. Silly me, I should have realized what your game is before now.

Ah, so Roger is a compulsive cyclist, believing that cycles that may have operated in the past trump all else. Roger: being able to predict solar irradiance to within a gnat’s whisker, even if you can do it, does little to predict global temperatures if you insist on ignoring changes in greenhouse gases and aerosols. And, no matter how proud you may be of your blog, it counts as nothing in the world of scientific publishing.

re: #472
1) BigCityLib has politely emailed a lot of the Heartland Experts to see if that status is one they a) know they had and b) wish to maintain. The answers vary. See Washington Post Picks Up Chris Landsea Story and earlier stories.

2) ANOTHER OWN GOAL FOR HEARTLAND
See Illinois Coal Association, Heartland’s new Gold Sponsor for ICCC-7.
Great move on the parts of ICA and Bast.

*75000 people view my site every month Jeff. Why would I want to pay a journal to hide my work behind a paywall*

I am sure the web sites of the KKK or NRA or other wacky right wing groups get thousands of hits, too, RTB. The same with ‘creation science’ sites. I am sure they same kinds of people who log into those kinds of blogs love the climate change denier sites. Does that make them legitimate? Of course not.

Lotharsson’s link to Ray Ladbury’s comment on Real Climate is important. As a fellow scientist, my research ain’t worth a dime if it is not published in a peer-reviewed journal. Blog sites are exactly as Ladbury described: venues for bullshit artists masquerading as scientists. And the pay-wall argument is flawed for two reasons: first, a lot of journals are open access now, and second, if you do manage to get your material published in a scientific journal, it gives the piece credibility it will never find on a blog. And this is especially true for the denier literature: there is so little of it that you can guarantee that Watts Morano, Milloy et al. will run to the hills screaming about it if it is published in a reputable journal.

re: 477 user-illusion.myid.net
Well, it all goes toghether. You might be amused by the section on Tom Bethell in Weird Anti-Science…, pp.16-19.
See especially “Professor of Physics Barr133 reviews Bethellâs article on relativity.” in which nontechnical Tom Bethell argues about relativity with 2 senior physicists. You can skip straight to that discussion.

In the comments, among the back-and-forth, we find:

‘âTom Bethell November 8th, 2009 | 12:50 am
MR BARR DOESNâT KNOW THE FIRST THING . . .
“He shows no understanding of relativity at all. I mean really none. Maybe he took a course on it once but maybe he already forgot it. On the basis of his post, I doubt if he could be teaching the subject. â¦ I donât think he knows the FIRST THING about science. And that includes physics.”‘

Actually, Professor Barr teaches graduate-level relativity theory. The long back and forth between Barr and Bethell, with comments by others, is quite amusing … and maybe be familiar.

469″Why wait? There’s apparently at least 2240 years of data to hindcast against. Your model doesn’t know whether it’s predicting the next 10-15 year period or a 10-15 year period that occurred 800 years ago. It should do equally well with either.”

The two biggest amplitude cycles are the well known de Vries cycle at 207 years and the cycle of solar system internal angular momentum redistribution at 979 years which sees the return of the gas giant planets to approximately the same locations. There are several possibilities for explanation of the underlying mechanism. We don’t know which it is yet, and that’s a principle reason for holding back on publication for now.

You know, it would be interesting to establish a CMI – that’s a Crank Magnetic Index – in order to assign a helpful value to the various Deniati.

You probably get the idea – starting off with a base of zero for believing CO2 in the atmosphere won’t bring about significant global warming, one can then add points for any of the following beliefs, starting with the related conspiracy/crank theories (1 point each) –

CO2 is not a Greenhouse gas

The scientists are all in it for the grant money

They are all Social!sts

They’re led Al Gore / George Soros / the WWF, etc.

The Heartland Billboards were an entirely reasonable, and not at all counterproductive, experiment in public communication

Peer-to-peer review

And then moving on to the genuinely Magnetic material (2 points each for these), including beliefs in –

An iron sun

The ether

Relativity is wrong!

Obama’s birth certificate is a fake

The mainstream media is heavily pro-liberal (small ‘l’) (and a bonus point for ever referring to ‘the lamestream media’)

The long back and forth between Barr and Bethell, with comments by others, is quite amusing … and maybe be familiar.

Arguments between right wingers are indeed amusing. Lest you think that, because he’s a physicist and, unlike Bethell and the other cranks in that thread, he understands relativity … he must be rational, consider this and this.

Thanks John for the link to the Barr-Bethell interaction. This exemplifies the problems when interested but untrained (i.e. self-trained) amateurs enter into debates in complex fields. It is well illustrated IMO here with RTB, Jonas and others. They have waded into the field of climate science, learned something about it, then run off with ideas in which they challenge the views of many senior scientists with years of expertise in the field. They routinely ridicule the positions of scientists with whom they disagree, but they refrain from throwing their ideas into the scientific arena where they would be subject to intense scrutiny. To defend this they casually dismiss the peer-reviewed literature and perr-review itself, as if this validates their arguments.

Whatever they may say, this illustrates the Dunning-Kruger phenomenon to a tee. I recall once being dragged into a debate with someone on a contrarian blog over estimates of extinction rates and the value of biodiversity. It was clear that the person did not have a clue what they were talking about (much like Lomborg in his superficial chapter on the subject) but because their views resonated with the target audience of the blog, I was heavily criticized and was repeatedly told that I knew less about the field of conservation ecology than this person, who in the end said that they had just finished high school. Their views were so simplistic and wrong that it was hard to know where exactly to begin debunking them. In the end, as RTB appears to admit, its more about web hits than scientific scrutiny.

It seems nowadays everyone thinks that they can become instant experts is various scientific fields. Climate science and ecology are certainly not exempt. When I defer to the views of those with pedigree in climate science with respect to AGW, I am ridiculed by Jonas and his attack dogs as well as by the other cranks who sadly have begun to populate Deltoid in ever increasing numbers.

>The two biggest amplitude cycles are the well known de Vries cycle at 207 years and the cycle of solar system internal angular momentum redistribution at 979 years which sees the return of the gas giant planets to approximately the same locations. There are several possibilities for explanation of the underlying mechanism. We don’t know which it is yet, and that’s a principle reason for holding back on publication for now.

This surely is self-parody.

The only other explanation would see RTB’s family in quiet, desperate discussion as to who initiates medical intervention.

The ocean heat content built up by 75 years of above average solar activity levels has been buffering the surface temp against the drop in solar activity since 2003. The current low cycle 24 is using up the reserves fast. It is likely to get a lot colder from late 2013.

In a just world, we could look forward to all this crap coming to an end by 2014.

> The ocean heat content built up by 75 years of above average solar activity levels has been buffering the surface temp against the drop in solar activity since 2003. The current low cycle 24 is using up the reserves fast.

The ocean heat content built up by 75 years of above average solar activity levels has been buffering the surface temp against the drop in solar activity since 2003. The current low cycle 24 is using up the reserves fast. It is likely to get a lot colder from late 2013.

Ah! But when Jupiter moves into Taurus and Saturn slips into Virgo what happens then?